Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

[pauldun170]

If government is to be in the position of recognizing and incentivizing arrangements that are beneficial to society, it should recognize and incentivize all arrangements that are beneficial, not just heterosexual ones.

I covered that in an earlier post

Monogamous and committed homosexual relationships are beneficial to society: lower risk and spread of STDs, higher productivity, and lower crime are a few of the benefits that come to mind.

Meh...not purpose of marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

I covered that in an earlier post

Which one, exactly?

Meh...not purpose of marriage.

According to whom?

 

[zsdersw]

We already covered that companies, which are made up of Persons, are forced to accept laws regardless of their like or dislike of said laws.

Pretending companies do not have to accept laws is silly.

Companies are made of persons who are not forced to be a part of that company. They do not have to agree to work for any given company.

 

[cybrsage]

Companies are made of persons who are not forced to be a part of that company. They do not have to agree to work for any given company.

And nations are made up of people who are not forced to live in the nations (well, first world nations anyway). Those wanting homosexual marriage can move to the country bordering the US to the north.

Yeah, that is just as stupid as your statement.

 

[zsdersw]

And nations are made up of people who are not forced to live in the nations (well, first world nations anyway). Those wanting homosexual marriage can move to the country bordering the US to the north.

Yeah, that is just as stupid as your statement.

Not really. Working for a company that must pay benefits to a homosexual spouse is an action you're forced to take as someone in an administrative position. Being part of a country that doesn't make something illegal (homosexual marriage) is not an action that's forced.

For your analogy to work you'd have to be talking about government officials in a country, not average citizens.

 

[cybrsage]

Not really. Working for a company that must pay benefits to a homosexual spouse is an action you're forced to take as someone in an administrative position. Being part of a country that doesn't make something illegal (homosexual marriage) is not an action that's forced.

Sigh.....

When you are FORCED to do something, you are FORCED to do it. If the people who make up a company are FORCED to provide benefits due to a law, they are FORCED to provide benefits due to the law.

You claiming they are not FORCED to provide the benefits they are being FORCED to provide is disengenuous.

When people are FORCED to accept things they do not like, they are being FORCED to do something they do not like. It really is that simple.

For your analogy to work you'd have to be talking about government officials in a country, not average citizens.

The people who work in companies are average citizens.



From what I can tell, you are one of those crazy people who say the word marriage is more important than granting protections to everyone, and therefor the government must not remove itself from marriage but instead force this change upon everyone via legislation. Is this true? Are you one of those people who demand hatred be fostered and spread throughout the nation?

 

[zsdersw]

Sigh.....

When you are FORCED to do something, you are FORCED to do it. If the people who make up a company are FORCED to provide benefits due to a law, they are FORCED to provide benefits due to the law.

You claiming they are not FORCED to provide the benefits they are being FORCED to provide is disengenuous.

When people are FORCED to accept things they do not like, they are being FORCED to do something they do not like. It really is that simple.



The people who work in companies are average citizens.

The people who are forced to provide the benefits are not average employees (in a company) or average citizens (in a country). They're administrative personnel.

From what I can tell, you are one of those crazy people who say the word marriage is more important than granting protections to everyone, and therefor the government must not remove itself from marriage but instead force this change upon everyone via legislation. Is this true? Are you one of those people who demand hatred be fostered and spread throughout the nation?

I don't really care what it's called, but I reject the notion that the word "accept" is an appropriate way to describe what people who oppose gay marriage/civil unions are forced to do in areas where gay marriage/civil unions are legal. It is something they are not required to participate in, pay for, or agree with.

It would be as nonsensical as saying we're all forced to "accept" that the sky is generally blue or that tree leaves are green. Those things are facts; reality. They're not something we can "accept" or "not accept". They (the color of the sky and tree leaves) also have absolutely no impact on us.

Saying someone is forced to "accept" something implies they do not like it and would be negatively impacted by it. Show me the negative impact of gay marriage/civil unions on those who oppose them.

 

[bfdd]

God I hate government. This wouldn't even be an issue if people would stop trying to use it to control others as their slaves. I can only assume those who want overarching government control over the lives of their fellow Americans wish they were slave owners.

 

[cybrsage]

God I hate government. This wouldn't even be an issue if people would stop trying to use it to control others as their slaves. I can only assume those who want overarching government control over the lives of their fellow Americans wish they were slave owners.

I don't think zdersw wants to be a slave owner, but he does appear to want the government to be intrusive in people's lives.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't think zdersw wants to be a slave owner, but he does appear to want the government to be intrusive in people's lives.

Nope... that kind of thing is for liberals and social conservatives.

 

[ericlp]

I don't know. Santorum is an whacked out dream for people like Pat Robertson and his Ill. I know there has to be a few people on this board that are for him 100%

I dunno tho, I remember when bush sold everyone on the one man one woman BS...Most everyone here was drinking the koolaid with the same shitty smirk bush had going.

So why change now?

 

[cybrsage]

Nope... that kind of thing is for liberals and social conservatives.

So then you are FOR the government getting out of marriage altogether and only issuing civil unions - thereby returning marriage to religion?

 

[zsdersw]

So then you are FOR the government getting out of marriage altogether and only issuing civil unions - thereby returning marriage to religion?

Yes, but I don't think the federal government needs to, should, or has the power to force that decision on each state. Each and every state should arrive at that on their own.

 

[nonlnear]

Yes, but I don't think the federal government needs to, should, or has the power to force that decision on each state. Each and every state should arrive at that on their own.

What do you think of Loving v. Virginia?

 

[pauldun170]

According to whom?

lower risk and spread of STDs, higher productivity, and lower crime are a few of the benefits that come to mind.

So in absence of legally recognized committed relationships, are you implying that homosexuals have a higher risk of STD's, lower productivity and high crime rates?

Perhaps we should put homosexuals on TSA watch lists.


I'll stop there.
I'm sticking with everyone is legally entitled to equal protection under the law and that the sexual preferences of the two people in contract of marriage should be irrelevant.

(M+F) = (M+M) = (F+F)

All the additional annoying unquantifiable side chatter is pointless.
Marriage's historical definitions are no match for a blaster kid.
Church isn't the origin, just an alternative form of governance that popped up and slapped a label on things.
The benefit to society to recognize marriage is two create an environment that creates new tax payers (aka children)
All the other bs is just "thought of the day..emotional driven BS...a new excuse to drive whatever point that is trying to be made so that an internet argument can be had"

The argument used by those who oppose revolves around tradition.
Tradition is a weak ass argument.
Societies change and laws adapt to that change.
In our own legal framework, it is clearly stated that laws apply equally to all. Trying to use some BS about tradition to circumvent that legal framework is some Kirk Cameron banana bullshit.

Enjoy your continued debate...
Not sure I have much else to add.
I'm slightly old and stuck in my ways and will not budge from my position so don't take it personally.

 

[zsdersw]

What do you think of Loving v. Virginia?

I think it was the right decision. Using it to judge what we're talking about here, though, homosexuals are not a suspect class like race, gender, and religion... so there is no contradiction or double standard.

 

[zsdersw]

So in absence of legally recognized committed relationships, are you implying that homosexuals have a higher risk of STD's, lower productivity and high crime rates?

Perhaps we should put homosexuals on TSA watch lists.

Unmarried/single heterosexuals are more prone to spread STDs, have lower productivity, and higher crime rates... same with unmarried/single homosexuals.

 

[nonlnear]

I think it was the right decision. Using it to judge what we're talking about here, though, homosexuals are not a suspect class like race, gender, and religion... so there is no contradiction or double standard.

That is hardly settled. The suspect class status is in judicial flux at best. Sure it was overturned by the Eighth Circuit, but it's pretty much undeniable that the issue is going to end up before SCOTUS before too long.

 

[pauldun170]

Unmarried/single heterosexuals are more prone to spread STDs, have lower productivity, and higher crime rates... same with unmarried/single homosexuals.

Then why did you explicitly say Homosexuals?
Too waste my time?

Why didn't you just say people?
Its people like you why we are all divided.
(just kidding...please extract panties from ass crack)


Guess the rest of my post was worthless to you.
That's ok.
It's my opinion. I don't care if anyone else borrows it or chooses to not borrow it.

(so glad to be a heterosexual married guy....
Enjoying my legal benefits LIKE A BOSS)

 

[zsdersw]

Then why did you explicitly say Homosexuals?
Too waste my time?

No, to identify benefits to society; something it would seem you don't (or didn't) think homosexual relationships have.

Guess the rest of my post was worthless to you.
That's ok.
It's my opinion. I don't care if anyone else borrows it or chooses to not borrow it.

Wasn't worthless, just wasn't anything I disagreed with enough to comment on.

 

[dank69]

Yes, but I don't think the federal government needs to, should, or has the power to force that decision on each state. Each and every state should arrive at that on their own.

Why do you think a state should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

 

[zsdersw]

That is hardly settled. The suspect class status is in judicial flux at best. Sure it was overturned by the Eighth Circuit, but it's pretty much undeniable that the issue is going to end up before SCOTUS before too long.

*shrug*... it's unsettled. Until it is settled....

 

[zsdersw]

Why do you think a state should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

Your interpretation is faulty. I don't think any state has the right to discriminate against homosexuals, but not because of anything at the federal level... but because of their own constitutions.

 

[nonlnear]

*shrug*... it's unsettled. Until it is settled....

I wasn't trying to browbeat you over it. It's fine to have an opinion either way. I was just puzzled that someone would let their personal opinion be determined by the status of a legal point that is still basically up in the air. (It was my impression that when you said you don't see any contradiction or double standard that you were expressing your opinion on the fundamental issue rather than stating a legal technicality. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

[pauldun170]

No, to identify benefits to society; something it would seem you don't (or didn't) think homosexual relationships have.

Incorrect - I have not given you any reason to make that assumption.
I only said that its beyond scope and I we already covered how the sexual preference is irrelevant.
Shame on you. (shakes finger)

Wasn't worthless, just wasn't anything I disagreed with enough to comment on.

Oh good...I was starting to get butterflies in my stomach.
PHEW!!!